A parallel is often drawn between the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of tobacco to the effect that both habits are injurious to health and have cummulative toxic effects. There is, however, a significant difference between the two practices in that one is not required when imbibing alcohol to absorb at the same time additional harmful substances; while the tobacco smoker, in addition to the euphoric and sedative nicotine, must inhale a multiplicity of parasitic compounds which are highly toxic and totally devoid of any enjoyable physiological properties.
As early as 1964 the Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated at page 62 that "seven polycyclic compounds isolated from cigarette smoke have been established to be carcinogenic . . . The over-all carcinogenic potency of tobacco tar is many times the effects which can be attributed to substances isolated from it. The difference may be associated in part with the presence in tobacco smoke of cocarcinogens, several of which have been identified as smoke components." At page 145 the report further states that "one hypothesis suggests that promoting agents present in tobacco and tobacco smoke, such as various phenols, enhance the potency of the carcinogenic hydro-carbons so as to account for the biological activity of the tobacco products. Further, possible synergism between low levels of the several non-carcinogens in the tobacco condensates and extracts may also enhance the carcinogenic potency." The report goes on inventorying other noxious products found in tobacco smoke such as pesticides used in the husbandry of tobacco in the United States, lactones and radioactive components. In an article published in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner of July 29, 1982, it is reported that the one-and-one-half pack-a-day smoker receives a yearly dose of alpha-radiation equivalent to 300 chest X-rays--a dose to the windpipe area of some eight rems of radiation per year. By contrast, the government standard for total body radiation exposure for nuclear power plant workers is only 5 rems per year.
On the other hand, the HEW report states at page 74 that "the effects of nicotine at dosage levels absorbed from smoking (1-2 milligrams per inhaled cigarette) are comparatively small."
Countless attempts have been made over the last few years to reduce the tar content of smoking tobacco. Cigarette manufacturers commonly use comparative advertising showing the low-tar content of their product relative to others. By judicious use of filters and other techniques, the tar content of certain cigarettes has been reduced down to the relatively low level of one milligram. Unfortunately, these techniques tend also to reduce the amount of nicotine down to approximately 1 milligram per cigarette; forcing the smoker to use more than one cigarette or to take a deeper breath and hold it longer in the lungs in order to achieve the same effect as the one obtained from an unfiltered cigarette. In other words, no one has found a way to completely eliminate the poison-loaded smoke inhalation inherent to the consumption of tobacco without reducing or even eliminating at the same time the pleasing sensations derived from a good smoke which are mainly attributable to the nicotine intake. To make matters worse, the filtering process tends to remove the largest but least harmful particles, while letting pass through the smaller ones which because of their size tend to penetrate more deeply into the lung cells. Thus, we must face the paradox of an increase in the toxicity of cigarettes in proportion to the efficiency of the filtering process.
A new approach beyond the use of filters must be sought for making cigarette smoking safer but nevertheless enjoyable.
Another unpleasant characteristic of smoking pertains to the air polluting effect and more specifically the inhalation of tobacco smoke by persons who find themselves in close proximity to the smoker in a confined environment. The side effect upon the non-smoker has been observed particularly amongst bartenders and waitresses who work long hours in poorly ventilated bars and coffee houses. This problem has been only partially palliated by means of mechanical and electrostatic fan-driven filtering machines.
There have been some attempts to circumvent the deleterious effects of tobacco smoke by electronically heating the pipe bowl to a degree sufficient to volatize the nicotine and aromatic compounds held by the tobacco without inducing combustion. U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,104,266 McCORMICK and 4,141,369 BURRESS disclose prime examples of this approach.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,303,083 BURRESS, Jr. suggests the use of a similar method for administrating volatile medications.
The contrivances can only be used in the proximity of an electrical power source. They are cumbersome to use. They look, handle and operate in ways far different from the common smoking instrument to act as acceptable substitutes.